If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Michigan Marriage Case Prepares for Trial

DeBoer v. Snyder will be tried starting this Tuesday, February 25 at the US District Court in Detroit, Michigan. The judge has set aside eight days for the trial, which will feature a number of expert witnesses.

The presiding judge is Reagan appointee Judge Bernard Friedman, but there is reason for optimism. The original claim was about adoption, but Judge Friedman invited the plaintiffs to sue for marriage. Why did he do this? One plausible explanation is he wants to see Michigan's DOMA overturned.

This case will attract a lot of media attention next week. We have not had a full evidentiary trial in four years since Prop 8 was tried in California.

One of the biggest issues is the testimony of Mark Regnerus, whom authored a rigged study claiming gays are inferior parents. Plaintiffs are attempting to exclude him from trial, but I think it is an opportunity to destroy his reputation in court and that of his "study," which has already been retracted by the journal Social Science Research.

Re: Michigan Marriage Case Prepares for Trial

Originally Posted by White Eagle

V ery good. Hope it works

It will.

The only thing that kept Michigan from happening sooner was the results of the 2010 midterm elections in this state.

My criticism of the Democratic party, for its so-called national strategy, is that winning presidential elections and carrying states' heavily-populous counties are not enough. Politics at the local levels, the congressional districts are also greatly important. My home state is a Democratic base state in presidential elections. The last Republican elected to the U.S. Senate, from Michigan, was Spencer Abraham in the 1994 midterms election wave for his party. (He became unseated in 2000 by Michigan's junior U.S. Sen. Debbie Stabenow, in a presidential year won in a Republican pickup by George W. Bush.) But the state has nine of its fourteen congressional districts in the Republican column.

Unless another state swoops in, I anticipate that Michigan will be the next to get its ass in gear and get on board for marriage equality.

Re: Michigan Marriage Case Prepares for Trial

Your point is well taken Coolblue. 2010 wouldn't have been nearly as bad if our base had shown up to vote. When we do, Republicans lose. When they don't, we win.
I would say this, the next two trials will be big. Judicial picks by Bush Sr and Jr rare uling on these. We've already had one conservative judge in KY rule in our favor, having a couple of more will certainly make the Supreme Court take note.

Re: Michigan Marriage Case Prepares for Trial

Originally Posted by Ninja108

Your point is well taken Coolblue. 2010 wouldn't have been nearly as bad if our base had shown up to vote. When we do, Republicans lose. When they don't, we win.
I would say this, the next two trials will be big. Judicial picks by Bush Sr and Jr rare uling on these. We've already had one conservative judge in KY rule in our favor, having a couple of more will certainly make the Supreme Court take note.

Judge Friedman is a Reagan pick, but then so is Justice Kennedy.

The PA judge is a GW pick, and the KY one was Bush Sr.

Believe it or not, there are still senior judges appointed by Nixon and Ford still working on cases, and three Kennedy picks are still alive and on senior status.

Re: Michigan Marriage Case Prepares for Trial

Not a suprise to see older Democratic picks still working. As for the trial, if nothing else I hope Regnerus's crazy rant from last week is brought up.
It will show his "study" was anything but unbiased.

Re: Michigan Marriage Case Prepares for Trial

... Judge Friedman is likely to create a stir when he issues a ruling in the bench trial that begins Tuesday. And although appeals and stays will likely delay the practical impact of any decision for months or years, Friedman has already telegraphed his skepticism that Michigan’s same-sex marriage ban can withstand constitutional scrutiny.

...

Like most people who have noted Friedman’s cautious but unmistakeable [sic] skepticism toward Michigan’s ban, I’ll be surprised if he allows it to stand as is.

But the truth is that whatever Friedman does, the inexorable evolution of voter sentiment and judicial attitudes toward same-sex marriage presage the eventual triumph of marriage equality.

Re: Michigan Marriage Case Prepares for Trial

I think he is going to strike it down but I also think it's important for our side to do a good job. Thrashing him here will make all the people that have used him in their appeals to the circuits look like fools.

Re: Michigan Marriage Case Prepares for Trial

I printed out an estimated 30-page report of the decision. (I wasn't feeling well and was asleep when the news hit.) I'm thrilled. Michigan won't be the last in line. And we have more states, we have the nation, getting on board. (Gradually, of course.)

Re: Michigan Marriage Case Prepares for Trial

In a historic ruling that provided a huge morale boost to the gay-rights movement, U.S. District Judge Bernard Friedman Friday [03.21.2014] struck down Michigan’s [2004-election-voted] ban on same-sex marriage, making it the 18th state in the nation to allow gays and lesbians to join in matrimony, just like their heterosexual counterparts.

“Today’s ruling is inspiring. It tells every person [in Michigan] that they have the right to share their love with whomever they choose without the government telling them it’s somehow less legitimate than the love that others may have. That freedom to make our own decisions about our lives is the very core of our Constitution and I applaud Judge Friedman today for recognizing that. I know there are countless couples out there at this very moment making wedding plans and I wish them the same happiness, the same success and the same love that all wedded couples deserve on their wedding day. I couldn’t be more thrilled than to be among the first to congratulate them on this great day.” —Senate Minority Leader Gretchen Whitmer

The above reports, from Detroit Free Press, do a good job of showing how historical and meaningful this is. And I provide that above information for those who may want a more local feel for what it means with a Top-10 populous state from the midwest (the Rust Belt). If it weren't for Republican having won the midterms of 2010, and doing chiefly so through the Rust Belt (which is what the path for Democrats when they won over both house of Congress in 2006), this day would have come sooner. I'm glad it arrived. —CoolBlue71

Re: Michigan Marriage Case Prepares for Trial

Select quotes. I recommend the discussion on Regnerus starting on page 11.

"The quality of a person’s child-rearing skills is unrelated to the person’s gender or sexual orientation." Id at 5

"...children of same-sex couples do just as well in school as the children of heterosexual married couples, ... same-sex couples are just as stable as heterosexual couples." Id at 7

"Denying same-sex couples the ability to marry therefore has a manifestly harmful and destabilizing effect on such couples’ children." Id at 9

"...there is no historical precedent for prohibiting marriages that are incapable of creating biological offspring." Id at 10

"The Court finds Regnerus’s testimony entirely unbelievable and not worthy of serious consideration." Id at 13

"...tradition alone does not satisfy rational basis review...many federal courts have noted that moral disapproval is not a sufficient rationale for upholding a provision of law on equal protection grounds." Id at 25

"The state may not shield itself with the “wait-and-see” approach and sit idly while social science research takes its plodding and deliberative course." Id at 25

"...[religious] views cannot strip other citizens of the guarantees of equal protection under the law. The same Constitution that protects the free exercise of one’s faith in deciding whether to solemnize certain marriages rather than others, is the same Constitution that prevents the state from either mandating adherence to an established religion..." Id at 26

"The Court is not aware of any legal authority that entitles a ballot-approved measure to special deference in the event it raises a constitutional question." Id at 29

"Taken together, both the Windsor and Loving decisions stand for the proposition that, without some overriding legitimate interest, the state cannot use its domestic relations authority to legislate families out of existence." Id at 29

"In attempting to define this case as a challenge to “the will of the people,” Tr. 2/25/14 p.40, state defendants lost sight of what this case is truly about: people. No court record of this proceeding could ever fully convey the personal sacrifice of these two plaintiffs who seek to ensure that the state may no longer impair the rights of their children and the thousands of other snow being raised by same-sex couples." Id at 30

Re: Michigan Marriage Case Prepares for Trial

I just concluded having read the 31-page decision. It covers the arguments very well. It uses the word "unbelievable" frequently regarding the Michigan state defendants' witnesses: Mark Regnerus. Douglas Allen. Etc.

It strikes me that the decision, as one may read through it, and comprehend it, shows that there wasn't any close consideration that the defense has any credible case. So, the types of arguments coming from a defense (be it in the state of Michigan or, for that matter, any other state), has no credibility. Not lacking credibility. Nothing.

The details of the decision are nice. But it's the conclusion that matters most. And I like this part best: "IT IS HEREBY DECLARED that Article I, § 25 of the Michigan Constitution and its implementing statutes are unconstitutional because they violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

"IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the State of Michigan is enjoined from enforcing Article I, § 25 of the Michigan Constitution and its implementing statutes."

Re: Michigan Marriage Case Prepares for Trial

LANSING — Gov. Rick Snyder [R-Michigan] said the nearly 300 same-sex marriages performed on Saturday [March 22, 2014] are legal but won’t be recognized by the state because of a stay put on a judicial decision that Michigan’s ban on same-sex marriages is unconstitutional.

“With respect to the marriages, we believe those are legal and valid marriages,” he told reporters on Wednesday. “The stay being issued makes it more complicated.

“Because of the stay, we won't recognize the benefits of the marriage until there’s a removal of the stay,” he added.